Re: Enclosue links over network?

It uses standard Ethernet. If there were a proprietary protocol then you would need to install that onto a client PC attached to this enclosure uplink / service port. That's not the case. You should be able to route it without issue.

Re: Enclosue links over network?

I don't know much about the up/downlink ports - especially what sort of traffic is run over them, but "route" has a rather specific meaning in networking suggesting routers and separate IP subnets. Did you perhaps mean "bridge" instead?

Re: Enclosue links over network?

Good point.

Rather than Ethernet I should have said TCP/IP. This is what lends me to believe the traffic is indeed routable. The port is 100BaseT Ethernet and runs with an address in the 169.254.x.y/16 (autoconfig) network.

Re: Enclosue links over network?

Bengt...This may sound a silly question...but why do you want to connect them together?

Is opening two browsers an issue?

HP recommend that you link the enclosures in the same or adjacent racks. Surely you have the enclosures in different locations for a reason... so proceedure wise is it not better to manage them as separate locations?

Re: Enclosue links over network?

All,

Thanks for the input. I also sent the question to HP support and their 2nd line guys just said "not supported" and "no comments" on if it would be feasible at least in theory :)

As for why, well, opening 2 browsers and doing 2 logins when you can do only one to get an overview of the whole environemt is a good enough reason for me. The number of enclosures here is going to increase over time. As well as the challenge to see if it could work, hey I'm a g33k ;)

Re: Enclosue links over network?

Nothing wrong with being a G33k - just remember the distinction in HPSpeak between "works" and "supported"

Supported, known to work -> warm fuzzies all aroundSupported, not known to not work -> an HPite may be in troubleSupported, known to not work -> an HPite is in troubleUnsupported, known to work -> lucky today, unlucky tomorrow?Unsupported, not known to not work -> there but for the grace of TuringUnsupported, known to not work -> no, it was not deliberate ;-)